Case 6004801/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Johnson v Ashton Meadows Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6004801/2026
- Decision date
- 26 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Care Assistant for five days and was summarily dismissed on 30 January 2026. Her claim included complaints of wrongful dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and automatic unfair dismissal on the basis that she said she had made protected disclosures.
The preliminary issue was an application for interim relief. The Claimant said she had raised concerns about being asked to feed residents and provide personal care without sufficient training or supervision. The Respondent disputed that the alleged disclosures were made and said the dismissal followed concerns about the Claimant's approach when feeding a resident.
The tribunal held that, without hearing evidence, it could not conclude at this stage that it was likely the Claimant would establish that the alleged disclosures were made, that any belief was reasonable, or that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The application for interim relief did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal decided only the Claimant's application for interim relief, which did not succeed. The underlying automatic unfair dismissal/protected disclosure claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sarfraz
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.